I agree Joan. John Paul II caught onto that and tried to put a stop to it. The Catholic annulment is the new Catholic divorce and a loophole. It's pretty simple. If the marriage was valid from the beginning then it's valid. The eccliastical Freemasons in the Catholic church have been abusing the annulment process. Only a person who filed for an annulment will disagree with you.

(Quote)Frank-410833 said: I agree Joan. John Paul II caught onto that and tried to put a stop to it. The Catholic annulment is th...

(Quote)Frank-410833 said: I agree Joan. John Paul II caught onto that and tried to put a stop to it. The Catholic annulment is the new Catholic divorce and a loophole. It's pretty simple. If the marriage was valid from the beginning then it's valid. The eccliastical Freemasons in the Catholic church have been abusing the annulment process. Only a person who filed for an annulment will disagree with you.

--hide--

That's the whole point of declaration of nullity,to determine if it was valid from the beginning.You can't say categorically all annulments are invalid.You might have a suspicion that some or even many may be invalid,but not all.

(Quote)Elizabeth-846499 said:
You know I had read and heard the same thing, about annullments being handed out...

(Quote)Elizabeth-846499 said:

You know I had read and heard the same thing, about annullments being handed out left and right. But found as I worked through the process that I learned so much about myself and the lack of understanding both I and my husband had about committing to and living a sacramental marriage that the process was worth it to help me gain much needed insight. Since then I've wondered if it is not so much that annullments are handed out so easily but that as American Catholics, we are so poorly prepared to commit to and live our vow that few of us enter into a proper marriage.Just a thought.

--hide--

Excellently said Elizabeth. I know several people who were denied and my mother who was not. Our parish priest urged my mother to file for the annulment and she reluctantly did so. The fact that my father actually participated in the process shocked me, it was probably one of the few unselfish things he ever did. My mom was devastated when hers was granted because she believed her vow was taken in all truth and intention. But it takes two to make the marriage sacramentally valid and my father was incapable of making that committment and had withheld information about himself that very probably would have altered my mother's decision to marry him.

And, for Joan, when Pete and I were filling out the questionaire he read through the first few and then peeked his head around the corner because we were in different rooms and whispered, "Do you really want me to answer these completely truthfully?" I said, "Of course." I don't know if he did or didn't. But, after our fourth child, he said I really only wanted two and I said but you knew I wanted ten (or as many as we could have). We ended up only having four, but I don't know what he answered on that. So it isn't unheard of for people to fib on such things, especially when they think it matters enough to the other person that they might object if they didn't agree.

And, Elizabeth you're right part of the problem in the American church is that so many are truly unprepared for marriage and this is not necessarily a fault of the pre-Cana, but a strong cultural problem related to so many issues our independent individualism, feeling of entitlement, being a cultural Catholic rather than a committed Catholic, and just the general state of relationships in the US to begin with. Makes for lots of broken and selfish people.

(Quote)Joan-529855 said: The tribunal's hand out annulments like candy so the "reason" for not filing shouldn't be &quo...

(Quote)Joan-529855 said:

The tribunal's hand out annulments like candy so the "reason" for not filing shouldn't be "no grounds". My former spouse filed for an annulment and his grounds were that he never wanted children (we have 4). While we were dating he wrote me a letter (I still have the letter) in which he said he is looking forward to have many children with me after we marry. During the pre-cana classes we filled out a questionaire (the diocese has a copy) that asked if we were open to having children. He answered YES.

I am sorry but the catholic annulment is a joke. AMEN

--hide--

Joan, yes, he was deceptive not to mention the fact he was not open to procreation. He married you under false pretense. I want to understand why you feel the Catholic annulment is a joke.

That's a very real feeling that holds many people back. It's stirring up old wounds and can bring back many unpleasant memories. In other words, it can be a stressful process.

Nevertheless, people are encouraged to initiate the process as soon as they are able. If the marriage was that traumatic, the time element seems to be less important -- it will hurt whenever it begins. It's helpful to seek an annulment as soon as possible while details are more readily recalled by those involved -- including witnesses. Also, witnesses can vanish as time passes -- they may be difficult or impossible to locate. Also, a person may be comforted in knowing if an annulment has been granted. That doesn't always happen, and more hurting can result. No one wants to relive unpleasant memories, but in real life it becomes necessary at times.

(Quote)Joan-529855 said:
The tribunal's hand out annulments like candy so the "reason" for not filing shouldn...

(Quote)Joan-529855 said:

The tribunal's hand out annulments like candy so the "reason" for not filing shouldn't be "no grounds". My former spouse filed for an annulment and his grounds were that he never wanted children (we have 4). While we were dating he wrote me a letter (I still have the letter) in which he said he is looking forward to have many children with me after we marry. During the pre-cana classes we filled out a questionaire (the diocese has a copy) that asked if we were open to having children. He answered YES.

I am sorry but the catholic annulment is a joke. AMEN

--hide--

The bigger question is that he was untruthful. When? Can't tell with certainty from what you've written thus far. If he was untruthful to the marriage tribunal, he has to live with that lie, be responsible for it, and answer for it in the end. Ultimately he may have gained nothing....

(Quote)Frank-410833 said: I agree Joan. John Paul II caught onto that and tried to put a stop to it. The Catholic annulment is the...

(Quote)Frank-410833 said: I agree Joan. John Paul II caught onto that and tried to put a stop to it. The Catholic annulment is the new Catholic divorce and a loophole. It's pretty simple. If the marriage was valid from the beginning then it's valid. The eccliastical Freemasons in the Catholic church have been abusing the annulment process. Only a person who filed for an annulment will disagree with you.

--hide--

Many people see annulments as the Catholic answer to a divorce. Not so. An annulment is to determine if there was a sacramental marriage at the onset. That's the critical issue and what the annulment process is about. If the findings are that the marriage was indeed sacramental (involving both husband and wife), then an annulment isn't granted. There are reasons why people haven't entered into a sacramental marriage, even though the appearances are there.

Can the process be abused? Certainly. People can lie. Some can't get away with it though because there may be evidence (written, or witnessed by others) to contradict false statements. It could happen that there is no proof that a person has lied. As I mentioned to Joan, that person has to live with that lie, and answer for it in the end.